Three comments:
1. Why should a W3C rec. track document care about epub:type? I would not accept this as an exit criteria for an ARIA module:
2. After all the significant work done by myself and members of the ARIA working group what have the digital publishers done up to now to use the DPUB ARIA spec.? Who is using it now? What effort is being made to ensure that they are used?
3. Why are 2 implementations of the ARIA mapping of the DPUB ARIA roles not required for exiting CR? One of the goals for using ARIA was to ensure that those roles that are needed by AT map. Currently, in this version, all map.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
----- Original message -----
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
To: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Matt Garrish <mgarrish@gmail.com>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DPUB-ARIA exit criteria
Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 8:30 PM
I have created a separate dpub-cr branch, and have put some text into it, see
I was not sure whether the reference to 3.1 is the correct one but, I presume, by the time this document will go to Rec, EPUB3.1 will be considered as a rec, too, so it should be fine. I hope the wording is fine, but I am sure Matt will be able to make it more readable!
Cheers
Ivan
Hi All,
Following up on this email and today’s meeting:
1. Ivan, would you please clarify if this was based on a discussion with Ralph? To confirm, Ralph was OK with publisher/author implementation of either the DPUB-ARIA roles or their predecessors in epub:type vocabulary?
2. Shane, what do you need from DPUB to arrange formal testing procedures?
3. We need to document our exit criteria for CR. Our plan is to publish in mid-November. Michael has asked us for this documentation by 4 Nov (ideally) (really no later than 8 Nov). I have not worked on this sort of thing before. I assume, Ivan and Shane that you are pros. Happy to help out.
Tzviya
Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Shane McCarron
Cc: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Richard Schwerdtfeger; Michael Cooper
Subject: Re: chat with Ralph
I assume you meant "However, for this case *if* we cannot do that…"
(Never send a mail while on a call…:-)
I can imagine a really simple web service that you could submit content to that would look for role values and tabulate them. Ask for a little information to correlate the usage with the "user" (publisher). Map the results against the terms in the document.
If there is interest in that, I will have someone throw it together. That's what Spec-Ops is here for!
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Ivan Herman <
ivan@w3.org> wrote:
I have chatted with him on the (vocabulary) exit criteria. Bottom line:
- Ideally, we should indeed have, for each term, at least two publishers/authors who use that term. Not necessarily in absolute full production, but at least, as a start, in some preliminary uses
- However, for this case, we cannot do that, we should have for each term, at least two publishers/authors that use the semantically equivalent epub:type value. Ie, if the only difference is syntax, then that should be fine.
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops